Rabbit Hole: From paper to plasma

The most immediately striking difference between reading the play (or seeing a cold-read) and watching the movie is the level of atmosphere. I felt that seen as simple text on a page, the dialogue can be interpreted in a number of ways. As Prof. Cudahy mentioned in class, the beauty and craft of the play is that given any interpretation play will stand as a touching and credible piece.

For me this is where the real major difference between the play and the movie came in: no matter how you read the play, how dramatically it's acted, or how skilled the actors, the little details that cinematography can provide - the soft blink before an onset of tears, an extended closeup, or a tiny movement of the hands - are leagues beyond what a simple cold reading, or even a performance, can express. I was most struck by the lighting in the movie, which could be mimicked on a stage, but not quite replicated.

On the other hand, I really saw how limiting a film adaptation can be in terms of audience interpretation. Movies tend to spoon-feed everything, compartmentalizing characters and cleaning up any abnormalities, while text forces the reader to draw original conclusions. In the "affair" scene with Aaron Eckhart and Sandra Oh, for example, given the setting and the music and lighting, etc. there was no question of Howie's actions being understandable; the movie probably wouldn't have been able to tackle Howie's need for affection, his love for his wife, his form of grief, and his multidimensionality without compromising some of the visual poignancy of the scene.